Scottish Parliament (Candidates) Bill [HL]

Yes, my Lords, but not in the same way as we have under the first-past-the-post system. Why is nearly everyone now in favour of PR? Let us take Scotland’s general election results in 2001. Labour polled 43.9 per cent of the votes but won 55 of the 72 seats. Surely even the noble Lord, who is supposedly against PR, would say that that is wrong. Something is fundamentally wrong when a party with less than 50 per cent—only 43 per cent—of the vote wins 55 of the 72 seats. There was a similar distortion in Wales, where Labour won 48.6 per cent of the vote, but 34 of the 40 seats. The time is here when PR in one form or another must be accepted by all sides of the House. The additional vote system was introduced in Scotland, Wales and the London Assembly to ensure that the people who voted had representation in some proportion to their electoral strength. In both Wales and Scotland, regional list members were returned to make amends for that distortion. I am delighted that the noble Lord admits that Labour also put candidates on the regional list as well as in the constituencies. I know that in North Wales, nearly every Labour constituency candidate was also on the regional list. This is an attack against what happened when this whole electoral system was agreed and an attempt to revisit the devolution settlement. Candidates are nominated for the list and for constituencies by all parties. Why were they nominated for both the list and a constituency? Was it not because the parties, in arranging their list members, wanted to ensure that those whom they regarded as being best able effectively to represent the people of Scotland or Wales at least had a decent chance of winning a place in the Parliament or Assembly? After all, it was the parties who chose them. I want an open list where the electors choose them; but, at present, it is a closed list and the party decides. Neither the Richards commission in Wales nor the Arbuthnott commission in Scotland had any difficulty with dual candidatures. Nor has the Electoral Commission. For the sake of the Parliament, for the sake of the Assembly but, most of all, for the sake of good representation and effective government in Scotland and Wales, it is essential that we have the strongest possible representation. The unease in Wales arose because of the result, which may even have reached the ears of people in Scotland, in Clwyd, West. Alun Pugh, the Labour candidate won the seat under first past the post, but the three main opposition candidates were on the regional list. What is at all wrong with that? If the party gets sufficient support at a regional level, what is wrong with those candidates becoming regional list members? I understand that the noble Lord sees it as reprehensible when he accuses regional list members of setting up constituency offices. A member who wants to meet his or her people needs to be established somewhere in that region. Regional list members cannot be in outer space or on another planet, so they have to be in their region or they cannot represent effectively. Whether or not they were a defeated constituency candidate, they would still set up an office in the region if they were elected from a regional list. They could also stand at the next election in the constituency in which they have an office. Preventing them now cannot stop them being a candidate in a constituency, unless you are going to say, ““Sorry, only the constituency member is allowed to have a campaigning office in such and such a place””. Perhaps that is what you want to do. So what about all other organisations that campaign, such as Help the Aged and other humanitarian organisations? Are you going to say to them, ““You’re not to have an office””? That would be a total restriction on the rights of people to work together for the benefit of the whole community. Are we now to legislate to say, ““No offices. Only the political office””? I would say that this Bill, for that reason alone, needs to be defeated. This Parliament must be representative of all organisations and open and inclusive. This Bill excludes. It is negative, and it will alienate and limit. So I suggest that the noble Lord withdraws the Bill at this stage in the proceedings.